There's no "we" who accumulate. Such moment of understanding can condition other moments of understanding in the future, by way of different paccaya. You might know that there are 24 different ways dhammas can condition each other. There's no need for any "self" for samsara to keep going.

I also wondered If you could come back to the following question, which you missed: "What you are putting forward are your views or Khun Sujin's views, which as you say are conditioned. Or is there an implication that you are becoming or that Khun Sujin is a conduit?"

I am not sure I understand well your question. As you know, in terms of absolute realities, views don't belong to anyone.But if your question is to ask whether what I've been putting forward comes from my own understanding or I just repeat Khun Sujin views because I believe they are right, then my answer is I would not be able to assert to myself that her views are right if there had not been enough consideration from my own part. Similarly, if someone were to ask you: considering that lying is unwholesome is your view or the Buddha's view, what would you answer?

By "being conditioned", I meant they are not owned by any self, created by any self. Because they are conditioned, they are bound to change. No one can know what "my" views will be next month, next life. Only a sotapana knows.

There's no "we" who accumulate. Such moment of understanding can condition other moments of understanding in the future, by way of different paccaya. You might know that there are 24 different ways dhammas can condition each other. There's no need for any "self" for samsara to keep going.

So could we say that a momentum is being allowed to develop? And there is an order within that momentum?

dhamma follower wrote:

Mr Man wrote: also wondered If you could come back to the following question, which you missed: "What you are putting forward are your views or Khun Sujin's views, which as you say are conditioned. Or is there an implication that you are becoming or that Khun Sujin is a conduit?"

I am not sure I understand well your question. As you know, in terms of absolute realities, views don't belong to anyone.But if your question is to ask whether what I've been putting forward comes from my own understanding or I just repeat Khun Sujin views because I believe they are right, then my answer is I would not be able to assert to myself that her views are right if there had not been enough consideration from my own part.

But where are you? If an activity (formal meditation for example) should be dismissed because it could be touched with such and such a taint wouldn’t your activity of “consideration” also have to be dismissed because it could be touched with a taint? Couldn’t we say “meditation” and your “consideration” are equal? And then we can look at the positive aspects and potential of different activities.

dhamma follower wrote: if someone were to ask you: considering that lying is unwholesome is your view or the Buddha's view, what would you answer?

What a smug smart-ass response. People can only talk to you on your level only when they express themselves in terms of paramattha-dhammas. You are ridiculous.u.

Well paramatha Dhamma is a Theravada term. I don't see it as insulting to ask more about what somone means by meditation. It can help to clarify a point.

Given that I asked dhamma follower to use coneventional speech to explain a point and he refused, or was unable, to do so, I see no compelling reason to indulge in this Abhidhamma-speak that is common among you Sujin followers, but not among the larger field of Dhamma practitioners.

Also, it is worth keeping in mind from the commentary to the Anguttara Nikaya:

Herein references to living beings, gods, Brahma, etc., are sammuti-kathā, whereas references to impermanence, suffering, egolessness, the aggregates of the empiric individuality, the spheres and elements of sense perception and mind-cognition, bases of mindfulness, right effort, etc., are paramattha-kathā. One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of generally accepted conventions, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on sammuti-kathā. One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of ultimate categories, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on paramattha-kathā.

To one who is capable of awakening to the truth through sammuti-kathā , the teaching is not presented on the basis of paramattha-kathā, and conversely, to one who is capable of awakening to the truth through paramattha-kathā, the teaching is not presented on the basis of sammuti-kathā. There is this simile on this matter: Just as a teacher of the three Vedas who is capable of explaining their meaning in different dialects might teach his pupils, adopting the particular dialect, whicheach pupil understands, even so the Buddha preaches the doctrine adopting, according to the suitability of the occasion, either the sammuti- or the paramattha-kathā. It is by taking into consideration the ability of each individual to understand the Four Noble Truths, that the Buddha presents his teaching, either by way of sammuti, or by way of paramattha, or by way of both. Whatever the method adopted the purpose is the same, to show the way to Immortality through the analysis of mental and physical phenomena.AA. Vol. I, pp.54-55

sammuti-kathā is not inferior to paramattha-kathā. And since this is not an Abhidhamma section we need not be limited to trying to speak in a stilted Abhidhamma-ese, which, as has been demonstrated here by those who use this sort of speak, does not make anything clearer.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

I'd appreciate if you could explain it in term of paramatha dhammas, what is the object, what kind of citta etc... But if you don't want to, that's fine.

I asked you here to express a point using conventional speech, and you refused to do so. I pressed you a second time and still you did not do so. Also, given your refusal to directly address points I directly raise in response to points you raise, your request is a bit tone deaf. I have no interest in indulging in the Sujin style Abhidhamma-speak. It is neither necessary, nor do I agree with the lack of responsibility that is strongly implied by the Sujin style Abhidhamma-speak, which runs counter to the Buddha's teachings.

Now, with that out of the way, I'll address: "Could you please explaine the word "meditation" here? What kind of bhavana you are referring to?" Concentration and mindfulness with clear comphrehension, which allows me to stay clearly and precisely attentive to the aches, pains, and such -- as well as the pscychological reponses to the physical symptoms -- that may be part of the particular illness as they arise and fall, and which allows me not to get lost in dukkha. You did vipassana practice for 10 years, so you should understand this and you should understand the reason for doing such a practice and what comes from it.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

tiltbillings wrote:nor do I agree with the lack of responsibility that is strongly implied by the Sujin style Abhidhamma-speak, which runs counter to the Buddha's teachings.

That's going a bit too far. I like meditating and I also like what KSujin is saying. When KS (or more likely, her younger followers) generalize about naughty meditators making mistakes (kind of like when meditators generalize about naughty abhidhammikas and their useless/ridiculous book-knowledge), I don’t mind that they probably have me in mind. It helps when someone points out my mistakes, and I think there might even be a sutta out there about thankfulness to those who straighten out your wrong views. And if I’m not making any mistakes, seems the only constructive thing is to thank the person for the kind (or malicious) warning and move on.

tiltbillings wrote:nor do I agree with the lack of responsibility that is strongly implied by the Sujin style Abhidhamma-speak, which runs counter to the Buddha's teachings.

That's going a bit too far.

I don't think so. My point is exemplified in the following attempt at impersoinal Abhidhamma-speak:

"i don't have a choice over my views. They are conditioned, as any other sankhara dhamma. It was different 10 years ago. It was different 10 months and 10 days ago. Never really the same. It changes as considering over dhammas occurs again and again, by conditions."http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 80#p230829

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

tiltbillings wrote:Don't be stingy with your words. What is the right path and what is the wrong path?

One needs to understand magga-paccaya to really understand it.

Kevin

Of course, this is a non-answer.

It clearly was an answer. Rather than burdening those who don't want to read it with a long explanation of exactly what magga-paccaya is, I simply stated "one needs to understand magga-paccaya to really understand it". People can then google it and read about it, or read about it in books. Perhaps it is a "non-answer" to you because it used "abhidhamma-speak", a term you seem to have coined.

tiltbillings wrote:The traditional metta practice as we see in the suttas and the Visuddhimagga was utterly dismissed. discounted as being wrong path was interesting, but expected in light of what as been said above, and the rather triumphalist responses of the questioners of Sujin in regards to the traditionalist to metta practice approach was very interesting. So, the question is: why did you link this talk? For what purpose?

I linked to the talk simply because I thought it was relevant to the conversation.

What was dismissed was not samatha bhavana, but the development of wrong concentration.

It clearly was an answer. Rather than burdening those who don't want to read it with a long explanation of exactly what magga-paccaya is, I simply stated "one needs to understand magga-paccaya to really understand it". People can then google it and read about it, or read about it in books. Perhaps it is a "non-answer" to you because it used "abhidhamma-speak", a term you seem to have coined.

Or you could have used concise, lucid conventional-speak.

tiltbillings wrote:The traditional metta practices as we see in the suttas and the Visuddhimagga was utterly dismissed. discounted as being wrong path was interesting, but expected in light of what as been said above, and the rather triumphalist responses of the questioners of Sujin in regards to the traditionalist to metta practice approach was very interesting. So, the question is: why did you link this talk? For what purpose?

I linked to the talk simply because I thought it was relevant to the conversation.

It was, but certainly not in the way you intended.

What was dismissed was not samatha bhavana, but the development of wrong concentration.

In other words, what was utterly dismissed was the traditional metta practices as we see in the suttas and the Visuddhimagga that talks about deliberately cultivating metta.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

So could we say that a momentum is being allowed to develop? And there is an order within that momentum?

Of course, I have never stated otherwise. The order of momentum would be said, IMO, in terms of vipassana nanas, starting from the first insight onward.

Couldn’t we say “meditation” and your “consideration” are equal?

Well, I would'nt call wise consideration or vipassana bhavana an activity. They arise by conditions, not because someone tries to do it. Yoniso manasikara doesn't arise because I decide: now I shall have wise yonisomanasikara. That is the gist of the argument so far. The difference comes when someone considers vipassana bhavana to mean an activiter called meditation that one can actively do.

pt1 wrote: My point is exemplified in the following attempt at impersoinal Abhidhamma-speak:

"i don't have a choice over my views. They are conditioned, as any other sankhara dhamma. It was different 10 years ago. It was different 10 months and 10 days ago. Never really the same. It changes as considering over dhammas occurs again and again, by conditions."http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 80#p230829

tiltbillings wrote: You did vipassana practice for 10 years, so you should understand this and you should understand the reason for doing such a practice and what comes from it.

Until I realized that vipassana bhavana doesn't something that we can actively do, but only moments of right understanding accumulated by conditions, as I've said many times here, and that you seemingly don't agree, which is fine.

So I understand what you mean because I have done that too, I just don't agree that sati-sampajana is the same thing than actively paying attention to a situation. In my understanding, it is rather understanding which arises and approach a reality with sati, which is called sati- sampajana. Without the element of right understanding of reality, it is not sati of satipatthana, and we can not actively make it to arise and maintain it. Understanding of its conditions, however, is a factor that can condition it to arise.

dhamma follower wrote:They arise by conditions, not because someone tries to do it. Yoniso manasikara doesn't arise because I decide: now I shall have wise yonisomanasikara.

Nobody says that things arise without conditions. The discussion is whether deliberate practice IS one of the conditions for it. Of course if one does not have all the necessary conditions, one can't will Yoniso Manasikaro or whatever.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

An observation which may help in understanding why your thoughts are being met with such resistance...

There appears to be a concern that by putting everything down to "conditions", which in turn have their own conditions, which have their own conditions etc... that this mode of engagement is discounting or ignoring the role of intention (cetana).

By not accounting for cetana (or perhaps insisting that cetana itself arises on account of conditions), you're discounting the notion of free will and projecting a form of fatalism. Whereas fatalism is usually depicted in terms of projecting the future from the present... what this Abhidhamma-speak and insistence on impersonal conditions is doing, is to project a form of fatalism from the past to the present.

Perhaps this is why the Buddha taught things like kamma, and not things like Abhidhamma?

pt1 wrote: My point is exemplified in the following attempt at impersonal Abhidhamma-speak:

"i don't have a choice over my views. They are conditioned, as any other sankhara dhamma. It was different 10 years ago. It was different 10 months and 10 days ago. Never really the same. It changes as considering over dhammas occurs again and again, by conditions."http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 80#p230829

Tilt, isn't choice also conditioned?

Of course choice is conditioned, but in that choice being choice, the interesting thing is that there is, in fact, choice, which means you do have a choice “over” your views. If there were no choice over your views, kamma would be meaningless. And you neatly illustrate here the serious problem with this “ultimate reality” impersonal Abhidhamma-speak.

dhamma follower wrote:

tiltbillings wrote: You did vipassana practice for 10 years, so you should understand this and you should understand the reason for doing such a practice and what comes from it.

Until I realized that vipassana bhavana doesn't something that we can actively do, but only moments of right understanding accumulated by conditions, as I've said many times here, and that you seemingly don't agree, which is fine.

And you seem not to pay any attention to what I say. Vipassana meditation is not a matter forcing vipassana; rather, it is a skillful way of cultivating the conditions that give rise to insights. Meditation is something we can choose to do, and it is something that the Buddha repeatedly and strongly advocated we do choose to do.

So I understand what you mean because I have done that too

It seems not to be the case.

I just don't agree that sati-sampajana is the same thing than actively paying attention to a situation.

It is the cultivation of a constancy of attention coupled with concentration that allows for one to train oneself, as the Buddha taught (Ud 1.10) in such a way that: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.'

In my understanding, it is rather understanding which arises and approach a reality with sati, which is called sati- sampajana. Without the element of right understanding of reality, it is not sati of satipatthana, and we can not actively make it to arise and maintain it. Understanding of its conditions, however, is a factor that can condition it to arise.

Intellectual understanding has an important role to play, but if one does not actually do what is necessary to actually see “reality,” as the Buddha taught, all the intellectual “right understanding” is of limited value. Hoping for something to arise because we have amassed an intellectual understanding might work to some degree, but it is not what the Buddha taught. He taught much more based upon our ability to choose, to act, to deliberately cultivate those factors that give rise to insight/vipassana.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

An observation which may help in understanding why your thoughts are being met with such resistance...

There appears to be a concern that by putting everything down to "conditions", which in turn have their own conditions, which have their own conditions etc... that this mode of engagement is discounting or ignoring the role of intention (cetana).

By not accounting for cetana (or perhaps insisting that cetana itself arises on account of conditions), you're discounting the notion of free will and projecting a form of fatalism. Whereas fatalism is usually depicted in terms of projecting the future from the present... what this Abhidhamma-speak and insistence on impersonal conditions is doing, is to project a form of fatalism from the past to the present.

Perhaps this is why the Buddha taught things like kamma, and not things like Abhidhamma?

Metta,Retro.

"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

retrofuturist wrote:There appears to be a concern that by putting everything down to "conditions", which in turn have their own conditions, which have their own conditions etc... that this mode of engagement is discounting or ignoring the role of intention (cetana).

By not accounting for cetana (or perhaps insisting that cetana itself arises on account of conditions), you're discounting the notion of free will and projecting a form of fatalism. Whereas fatalism is usually depicted in terms of projecting the future from the present... what this Abhidhamma-speak and insistence on impersonal conditions is doing, is to project a form of fatalism from the past to the present.

Hello Retro,

Is the view that "cetana arises on account of conditions" and that "'free will' is an illusion" necessarily a view of fatalism?I am asking this because I believe: intention arises due to conditions, and that in ultimate sense 'free will' is an illusion; yet it is by using right intention that we have to further develop wisdom, make effort to follow the 8-fold path and realize this truth. To me it appears that this is the middle way the Buddha is teaching. I could be wrong though, so want to know how others understand it.

SamKR wrote:Is the view that "cetana arises on account of conditions" and that "'free will' is an illusion" necessarily a view of fatalism?I am asking this because I believe: intention arises due to conditions, and that in ultimate sense 'free will' is an illusion; yet it is by using right intention that we have to further develop wisdom, make effort to follow the 8-fold path and realize this truth. To me it appears that this is the middle way the Buddha is teaching. I could be wrong though, so want to know how others understand it.

Perhaps if you want to pick that topic up, this might be a good place for it...